Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The ecosystem includes some important UNESCO special sites such as Maasai Mara and Serengeti.
Evidence B:The EOI clearly provides that the proposed territory is home to globally significant mammals such as wildebeests and elephants as well as birds species. It also comprises sanctuaries and community forests.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: From such a large area carbon sequestration is substantial.
Evidence B:The EOI falls short of explaining the proposed territory’s contribution to climate mitigation. For example, no quantification/figure in terms of t/ha is provided.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Yes. Perhaps because of lack of skills inn the area, there are substantial positions in the project are occupied by outsiders.
Evidence B:As per the EOI, the main part of the area falls under protected areas (national parks), with some parts comprising rangelands occupied by Maasai and Taita Taveta communities.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Adequately.
Evidence B:No explanation is given in the EOI, of the unique cultural significance of the area to the IPLCs. The EOI however describes the ecosystem.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: There are many threats to all parts of the ecosystem, loss of biodiversity being the most serious one.
Evidence B:Question 3 of the EOI addresses different issues. Threats marginally touched upon.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: They work with county and national government as well as international partners and this brings in knowledge and practice of relevant legal and policy frameworks.
Evidence B:Information provided is not robust enough. The EOI however mentions the Wildlife Conservation Act, 2013.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Government agencies are active partners.
Evidence B:The Wildlife conservation Act of 2013 requires conservancy management plans. This, according to the EOI, has contributed to improved land management.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The Maasai Mara is surrounded by many active conservancies.
Evidence B:The EOI lists group ranches as successful projects. The information given to back this up is not convincing.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Many of the complementary projects have partnership relationship with KWCA.
Evidence B:The EOI lists several projects that are complementary to the proposed project. They implemented by partner organizations such as the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Associations and the Kenya Wildlife Service.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: It is well aligned since most of the proposed activities are complementary to the objectives conservation in the area.
Evidence B:The EOI for example, envisions scaling up IPLC inclusion in biodiversity conservation. Another approach is mainstreaming IPLC governance system in the conservation practice and policy in Kenya.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: They are well articulated and convincing.
Evidence B:The EOI has well defined interlinked components. However, these components should have contained more specific and concrete activities.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: They are realistic and it is possible to address substantial amounts during the time allocated.
Evidence B:The EOI is not convincing enough, apart from stating that the project will contribute to GEF’s pragmatic approach for inclusive and integrated conservation of biodiversity in East Africa.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The project’s previous range of investment is lower bu well aligned.
Evidence B:Partially aligned. Activities need more sharpening and aligning them well with expected results.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The project has a big number of partners who have been with the project for a long time contributing significantly to the project.
Evidence B:The EOI envisages leveraging community’s in kind contribution as well as on-going work by other organization. This is not robust enough.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: They are high but not too high.
Evidence B:Information provided is not relevant. The EOI refers to potential to support IPLC governance.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: They are well thought out.
Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on contribution of GEF core indicators.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The management of the project were part of originators of the conservancy idea to include indigenous communities and local communities. So the project is implementing their long term vision.
Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on gender inclusion
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Yes. Completely.
Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on cultural or livelihoods indicators.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The project demonstrates deep awareness of Kenya constitutional requirement relating to gender balance and mainstreaming.
Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on consistency on national priorities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Quite competently.
Evidence B:The EOI is poorly written with hence hard to review.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Clearly led by IPLC but some important positions are occupied by personnel that are not IPLC.
Evidence B:No evidence is adduced of IPLC leadership in defining the approach.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The leadership has a long term association with the project.
Evidence B:No convincing/robust evidence is provided apart from prior experience implementing a GEF project.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Many partners is evidence of this.
Evidence B:Not relevant. The EOI focuses on areas of expertise/qualifications of key staff members.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The required skills are well indicated.
Evidence B:Based on the qualifications of staff, partners and experience implementing a GEF project, the proponent possesses demonstrable capacity to implement the project
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The project indicates a high degree of competency from a long time involvement in the project.
Evidence B:The EOI meets most criteria. For example the average annual budget is $666, 545 and it regularly produces audited accounts statements.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: There is full awareness of safeguards.
Evidence B:No explanation is given, but the answer provided is Yes, indicating that the applicant has experience implementing a GEF funded project.